This news has all been so deflating over the past several weeks. Is there any good news? Is the team focused and prepared for a winning season or is this a distraction?
UCLA fan here (pay no attention to the avatar with a Davidson-era Steph Curry, it’s complicated). I love this move for UCLA because it gives them a path to become competitive again and get the athletic department out of a hole. I think UCLA will emerge and look a lot like what Texas A&M looks like in the SEC now.
I hate this move because it destroys West Coast athletics as we know it. My school just happened to get thrown a lifeline—the definition of failing upward.
There’s a lot of blame to go around, sure — Oregon and Stanford not capitalizing on CFP opportunities, the conference being locked into a long term deal, scheduling, refs, title game locations, etc.
The two biggest failures in my mind though, come down to local leadership at the CA schools, and leadership at the conference levels.
The conference level is obvious—the CEO group enabled Larry Scott towards a decade of incompetence. And Gene Block was one of his strongest supporters, along with Michael Crow at ASU.
But plain and simple, the CA ADs and the UC system botched their tenures. Dan Guerrero almost single-handedly ruined the athletic department all for the sake of “keeping a balanced budget”. You all know how Barbour screwed everything up for Cal athletics better than I did. It’s part of Stanford culture not to give a shit about football save for the three years you have a once in a generation prospect like Andrew Luck, and USCs revolving door of sanctions, Kiffin/Sark/Helton and ADs (Pat Haden and Lynn Swann? Really?) led to USC becoming an absolute joke.
All those isolated failures had massive implications on the PAC-12 brand. It matters when the 4 schools that are in two of the largest media markets in the country and are supposed to be carrying the flag for the conference just shit the bed.
And that’s a shame. We weren’t just the Conference of Champions, we used to be one of the strongest football conferences in the country even in the early 2010s. It’s just astounding (and sad) 10 years of abysmal leadership led to the dissolution of 100+ years of tradition and history as a conference.
UCLA and Texas A&M are WAY different (and I have an MFA from UCLA) in terms of football culture. Texas A&M left to the SEC to escape the giant Texas shadow. UCLA is staying in USC's shadow. Along with the fact that UCLA has higher admission standards, and you're going to see UCLA as a Northwestern with better uniforms.
Disagree. UCLA admission standards are high but not Northwestern/Stanford/ND level.
UCLA may still play second fiddle to USC but there’s enough talent out here where UCLA can stand on its own, and be able to lure some kids out from Midwest like USC used to do—and will do. The GOR revenue will help UCLA get out of debt quickly and allow it to reinvest resources into the program.
I compared it to A&M because even though they were always in Texas’ shadow they were a sleeping giant much like UCLA is. The only thing holding UCLA back was incompetent leadership in the athletic department which led to the snowball of problems that affected not just UCLA but the PAC as well.
The fact that Jarmond managed to convince Gene Block that this was a move worth making tells me that we have at the very least an aggressive AD who doesn’t plan on sitting around and being second fiddle to anyone.
All those factors will put the Bruins in a hell of a lot better position than they’ve been in the last 15 years.
Thanks for posting. I don't disagree with you about most of this, including the failure of leadership of the California schools. However, Barbour is the best AD we've had in a long time. The stadium situation was undermined by 1) the tree sitters and 2) Tedford losing his touch. She kept Tedford happy and got him resources when he otherwise easily could have left. She got us Mike Montgomery. The Dykes hire was unfortunate, but overall I thought she was more aggressive and had a more ambitious vision for Cal athletics than most of our ADs have over my lifetime.
That's a mighty low bar....but yeah, Sandy did some good things. The Tree-Sitters is not on her, but the wimpy Admin who didn't want to send in the cops to reclaim the University land from trespassers.
She gets an A just for fielding the best football team in the recent Cal history, although Tedford wasn't her hire, but for keeping him and also building a new stadium and facility.
In lieu of the SBNation blogs, what are the WFC equivalents for the other Pac-12 California schools? Interested in getting the temperatures of fanbases of over the realignment conversation.
If you’re still counting us as part of the conference, UCLA is over at The Mighty Bruin, run by the same guys who ran Bruins Nation before the new CA laws took effect.
Absolutely sucks whats going on with college ball. Realignment and nil will kill it. It was supposed to be amateur athletics. Texas Tech just announced they will pay every player 25k per year. Think that's about beginning farm club rate for minors and no one goes to those games either.
This feels like earthquake weather, just the college football edition. I can imagine waking up to a whole bunch of different scenarios that I would never have imagined just a couple of months ago.
Big 12 just came out saying they will not merge with the Pac-12, which is a relief. I don't care to visit Stillwater, Waco or to align with those schools. I think the most likely scenario in the short term will be some sort of more formal alliance between the Pac-10 and the ACC. Not a merger, but an alliance that would create some premium match-ups between the conference and perhaps and alliance champion to help as a showcase for a playoff berth. Would be an attractive package for ESPN.
RE: ACC. You'd be playing maybe one or two out of conference games (one of which would be at home), plus a championship game between the two league winners (which we are unlikely to ever play in. Hah.) Plus you'd have some pretty sick basketball matchups. It seems pretty light as far as travel. You're basically sacrificing a non-conference match-up you'd be traveling across the country for anyways. You're still playing all of the Pac-10 schools. ESPN could market a day full of these matchups like they do for the Big East/ACC basketball showcase, which would bring some needed national visibility for the conference. It would help strength of schedule for a playoff birth. Bringing in the schools you mentioned fills the schedule for sure and give us more markets (albeit tiny ones), but weakens the conference strength of schedule from even just a Pac-10. Creating those ACC matchups strengthens it and makes up for some of what will be lost to the conference's strength of schedule with the loss of USC. Plus, adding those schools, means you may actually ended up playing in Boise or Ft. Collins rather than Seattle or Eugene some years. It waters down the schedule we would have now.
I understand how the ACC/Pac alliance would more than likely work and bring in more money than the expanded Pac10.
However, an expanded Pac10 could be a short term step but with a potential long term gain in terms of those areas growing in population. You bring in CSU and now the Pac has the entire Colorado market. Bring in Boise and you have the entire Idaho market.
Basically the Pac would control the entire markets for the states of Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Arizona. Utah State and Utah command a good portion of the Utah market. We get some of SoCal back with FSU and SDSU.
Try to cut a deal with Apple TV or Amazon Prime to broadcast your games with a simulcast on ESPN or Fox for any games that air after 6pm PST.
If we bring in SDSU, apparently the other MW school should be UNLV based on media market and future growth potential. Plus they play in the new Raiders stadium.
You may be right if you can hold the rest of the conference together. I just don't see UO and UW waiting for those markets to grow and for a payout beyond the more imminent TV deal. At the end of the day, we'll need to find the best short-term solution to bring in the most TV revenue we can in this current negotiation, otherwise it's bye-bye--and possibly even if. Also, as a fan, I'd be more excited with the ACC alliance. That said, I would be interested in bringing in SDSU now. I think they make the most sense of the teams you suggest. And they'd help with basketball (although I hate their fans even more than U of A fans).
Also, I think my initial desire was to join the B1G, but I've become more interested in finding away to preserve the conference and hopefully strengthening it over time. That said, you don't want to be left without a life raft, so if presented the opportunity to join the B1G, we have to take it. If no, the next Pac-10 program asked will.
That's how I feel as well, alpha. We are no longer on solid ground. It wouldn't surprise me if (figuratively) the ground opened up and swallowed everyone but the SEC and the B1G.
Me neither. He's a young guy, making P5 money. If Cal stays P5 and he wins, he'll be a hot commodity. If the Pac-survivors drop to mid-major level, he still has his P5 salary until his contract expires, at which point he is a free agent. Alternatively if Cal does drop to mid-major, Cal could no longer afford Justin's salary, and would be somewhat releived to see him leave (so they could replace him with someone much, much cheaper).
He will be fine because he can always leave Cal for a bigger job. Cal has a minimum of two more seasons in a P5 conference, if Wilcox proves he can field a competent offense and win a Pac12 north title or a conference title he would be a hot commodity for any coaching vacancy at a bigger program. If Wilcox can’t field a competent offense and his teams struggle he will be fired and get a job as a DC at a good program.
I've been in your camp, Nick, for a very long time. I've been there since the start of the BCS nonsense and have often fretted that we were seeing the changing of college football and not for the better in pursuit of the almighty dollar. All the while ADs and college presidents said that NIL would be the death of college football. The unspoken part was that the ADs and the college presidents would be the death of college football because they would pursue the Big Bucks even if ti meant making college football nothing more than the NFL minor leagues.
Bowl games will contract, maybe dry up, within the next decade if not sooner. College football has always been about transferring wealth from the fans and the colleges to the bowl game folks and the TV networks ever since the advent of TV and the SEC.
The Rose Bowl is on life support, and it's only recently been made obvious that this is the case.
I disagree that the bowls will go away unless they are replaced by enough playoff games—and an eight team playoff is simply not enough for the content needs of the networks and sponsors. This is the reason some of the bowls with only a quarter of the stadiums filled can continue to exist. If they go, they’ll be replaced by something else.
The obvious and only solution for me is to stop caring about college sports. That's a decision that, while it has some pangs of regret, has been getting easier and easier for a long time.
I don't believe most Cal fans want to see Cal in the Big 10, Big 12 or ACC. Our choices are limited - and it's all about the lesser evils. Cal must work to preserve what's left of the original Pac - in whatever form or under whatever affiliation is necessary. As for the southern traitors - you're dead to us.
Expansion doesn't seem to be what it was in yesteryear (like 2 months ago). In reading all the articles about this realignment cycle, it's all about value now. For example, Notre Dame just stated its goal of $75M/year in media rights. So unless a new prospect like SDSU or UTSA for example, can at least match if not bring greater value than the current PAC members (which I think is around $30M - $40M with USC/UCLA), then their addition would be a net negative in the upcoming renegotiation and the payout would be divided up among more members. So, besides meeting traditional criteria like academics and football strength, any new addition needs to somehow bring greater media value through strength of brand, fanbase, marketability, and of course, media market. Though I guess if the PAC media value w/o USC/UCLA is lower, then the threshold could be lowered somewhat.
But the question is, does Cal (and even Stanford) want to remain a P5, with all that entails. To remain competitive in P5 football, does Cal Admin really want to play the NIL game? (I'm skeptical.) Does Cal want Olympic sports flying cross-country for conference games/tourneys? (Not likely)
As this shakes out, perhaps the best solution is mid-major status, (and a reduction of 30 sports)
Prior to UCLA and USC moving to the B1G, the Pac-12 was a Power 5 conference. The Pac-12 is still a P5 conference, but it is slipping into mid-major status unless it can do something to stop the slide. That something may be merging with the Big XII and/or the ACC.
The college football landscape has changed. One could argue that the power conferences are now the B1G and the SEC alone. Those conferences certainly have the TV status, wealth, and power that no other conference has.
College football has been undergoing a metamorphosis over the last 25 or so years that has radically changed the ground underneath our feet. What was true in 1996 is no longer true in 2022. If the remaining Pac-12 schools don't adjust with the shifting landscape, they will cease to be programs with any influence at all. As it is, they're just barely hanging on. Barely.
The loss of regional rivalries like this is going to hurt the sport in the long run, even if the current bosses can't see it while they chase short-term TV money. Strip away the history and tradition, and at some point college football just becomes a worse version of the NFL.
You're right, but I don't think it will matter. Part of what makes college football special (at least to me) is all of the weirder match-ups and the parity of styles. Pulling half the teams into two or three mega-conferences is only going make the product more homogenized. I would say that in SEC territory, college football is more popular than the NFL and probably always will be. The restructuring is not likely to affect those teams and rivalries the way it is in other regions. Pull Auburn out of the SEC and you'd see all sorts hell break loose, but that's never gonna happen.
I don't think college football should want to shrink itself to a Southeast/Midwest regional league either. Those are the only places where they could count on consistent support above or equal to the NFL, and even there it's touchy in the Midwest.
You'd think, but no one's driving and caring for the ship. That's the crux of the problem. Individual conferences (and fewer of them) and television are in control and there is no overarching entity looking out for the interest of the sport or the fans.
Conference realignment came for the Big East and I did not speak out because Cal was not in the Big East. Conference realignment came for the Big12 and I did not speak out because Cal was not in the Big12. Finally conference realignment came for the Pac12 and no one cared about Cal.
I share the sentiments of the author. I've lived my entire life rooting against $C and the little bruins. Of all games Cal plays, even more for me than Furd, I want to beat the LA schools. Nothing, nothing, will replace that. Why have I ever cheered for college sports, and remained a fan into adulthood instead of switching to a focus on professional sports? Because I have loved the amateur status and scholar/athleticism of Pac 8-10-12 schools. Take that away, and what is there? Why would I watch on Saturday? I have season tickets this year. What will the future look like for my investment? This whole thing is depressing. It rocks my world more than just about anything. How the next few years play out will be profoundly impactful to Cal Athletics not only through TV rights and such, but alumni loyalty and ticket purchases.
Right on. I grew up in SoCal and hated $C then for the sniveling pompous rich kid attitude of the place. The only kid in my school to go to $C was a guy whose family was rich and who was about 35th in our class and a B student. Validated my bias. Then I went to Cal and my dislike for them flourished. UCLA was always just a little teachers college that I never cared about as a kid and still don't. Love to beat them in anything, and punish their sibling status as a weak sauce version of our colors and song.
When I was living in Chicago in the aughts, my dad (also an Old Blue) came out and we went to a SC / Notre Dame game (maybe Carroll's first year). I think we bought ticket from a USC fan on the train down to South Bend and ended up sitting really close to the field, but in a crowd of grey-haired old SC donor types. The SC cheerleaders were performing in front of us, and one of the cheerleader's mothers was standing up at the rail next to the field to take some photos of her daughter--clearly proud and happy to be sharing in this moment. The privileged SC donors instantly started yelling at the mom to get out of the way and sit down--turning on their own. I think one the old men even called her a "Sally". It was so gross and truly emblematic of the House of Troy.
I'm with you. My family was historically divided between UCLA and USC (I grew up a UCLA fan). Going to Cal gave my family a trash talk triangle and now that's broken.
I understand why the LA schools left and how Larry Scott's malpractice led to this moment but it still sucks, especially during this period of uncertainty.
I keep wondering if voting YES for a 12-team playoff would have made any difference in keeping $C from jumping ship and taking UCLA with them.
This news has all been so deflating over the past several weeks. Is there any good news? Is the team focused and prepared for a winning season or is this a distraction?
UCLA fan here (pay no attention to the avatar with a Davidson-era Steph Curry, it’s complicated). I love this move for UCLA because it gives them a path to become competitive again and get the athletic department out of a hole. I think UCLA will emerge and look a lot like what Texas A&M looks like in the SEC now.
I hate this move because it destroys West Coast athletics as we know it. My school just happened to get thrown a lifeline—the definition of failing upward.
There’s a lot of blame to go around, sure — Oregon and Stanford not capitalizing on CFP opportunities, the conference being locked into a long term deal, scheduling, refs, title game locations, etc.
The two biggest failures in my mind though, come down to local leadership at the CA schools, and leadership at the conference levels.
The conference level is obvious—the CEO group enabled Larry Scott towards a decade of incompetence. And Gene Block was one of his strongest supporters, along with Michael Crow at ASU.
But plain and simple, the CA ADs and the UC system botched their tenures. Dan Guerrero almost single-handedly ruined the athletic department all for the sake of “keeping a balanced budget”. You all know how Barbour screwed everything up for Cal athletics better than I did. It’s part of Stanford culture not to give a shit about football save for the three years you have a once in a generation prospect like Andrew Luck, and USCs revolving door of sanctions, Kiffin/Sark/Helton and ADs (Pat Haden and Lynn Swann? Really?) led to USC becoming an absolute joke.
All those isolated failures had massive implications on the PAC-12 brand. It matters when the 4 schools that are in two of the largest media markets in the country and are supposed to be carrying the flag for the conference just shit the bed.
And that’s a shame. We weren’t just the Conference of Champions, we used to be one of the strongest football conferences in the country even in the early 2010s. It’s just astounding (and sad) 10 years of abysmal leadership led to the dissolution of 100+ years of tradition and history as a conference.
UCLA and Texas A&M are WAY different (and I have an MFA from UCLA) in terms of football culture. Texas A&M left to the SEC to escape the giant Texas shadow. UCLA is staying in USC's shadow. Along with the fact that UCLA has higher admission standards, and you're going to see UCLA as a Northwestern with better uniforms.
Disagree. UCLA admission standards are high but not Northwestern/Stanford/ND level.
UCLA may still play second fiddle to USC but there’s enough talent out here where UCLA can stand on its own, and be able to lure some kids out from Midwest like USC used to do—and will do. The GOR revenue will help UCLA get out of debt quickly and allow it to reinvest resources into the program.
I compared it to A&M because even though they were always in Texas’ shadow they were a sleeping giant much like UCLA is. The only thing holding UCLA back was incompetent leadership in the athletic department which led to the snowball of problems that affected not just UCLA but the PAC as well.
The fact that Jarmond managed to convince Gene Block that this was a move worth making tells me that we have at the very least an aggressive AD who doesn’t plan on sitting around and being second fiddle to anyone.
All those factors will put the Bruins in a hell of a lot better position than they’ve been in the last 15 years.
Thanks for posting. I don't disagree with you about most of this, including the failure of leadership of the California schools. However, Barbour is the best AD we've had in a long time. The stadium situation was undermined by 1) the tree sitters and 2) Tedford losing his touch. She kept Tedford happy and got him resources when he otherwise easily could have left. She got us Mike Montgomery. The Dykes hire was unfortunate, but overall I thought she was more aggressive and had a more ambitious vision for Cal athletics than most of our ADs have over my lifetime.
I don't know about the era before Sandy, but she's definitely better than Knowlton and Williams.
That's a mighty low bar....but yeah, Sandy did some good things. The Tree-Sitters is not on her, but the wimpy Admin who didn't want to send in the cops to reclaim the University land from trespassers.
She gets an A just for fielding the best football team in the recent Cal history, although Tedford wasn't her hire, but for keeping him and also building a new stadium and facility.
This article has been linked to the CFB subreddit page.
In lieu of the SBNation blogs, what are the WFC equivalents for the other Pac-12 California schools? Interested in getting the temperatures of fanbases of over the realignment conversation.
If you’re still counting us as part of the conference, UCLA is over at The Mighty Bruin, run by the same guys who ran Bruins Nation before the new CA laws took effect.
Reddit?
Absolutely sucks whats going on with college ball. Realignment and nil will kill it. It was supposed to be amateur athletics. Texas Tech just announced they will pay every player 25k per year. Think that's about beginning farm club rate for minors and no one goes to those games either.
I can't see Cal Admin approving such mass payments to football players, much less $9m for a 4* qb, even if the Alums would come up with the cash.
Cal football will wither even if we get a BiG invite. We'll be the cupcake for the big boys (just so we can continue to sponsor 30 sports).
Thank you for writing this column. It sums up how I feel too. My interest in CFB is pretty quickly draining away.
This feels like earthquake weather, just the college football edition. I can imagine waking up to a whole bunch of different scenarios that I would never have imagined just a couple of months ago.
1. Big 12 and Pac 10 merge!
2. Cal, Stanford to the Big 10!
3. Big 12, Pac 10, ACC merge!
4. Cal and Stanford in the SEC????
5. Cal is independent...joining the LIV tour...
None would surprise me
"LIV tour", good one had me laffing tears!!
Big 12 just came out saying they will not merge with the Pac-12, which is a relief. I don't care to visit Stillwater, Waco or to align with those schools. I think the most likely scenario in the short term will be some sort of more formal alliance between the Pac-10 and the ACC. Not a merger, but an alliance that would create some premium match-ups between the conference and perhaps and alliance champion to help as a showcase for a playoff berth. Would be an attractive package for ESPN.
At this point, my preferences would be:
1. Join the Big10
2. Expand the Pac to include SDSU, FSU, Utah State, Colorado State, Boise State and either UNLV or UNR.
I don’t want to do another alliance, especially with the ACC since those schools are even further away than Big10 or Big12 schools.
I also wouldn’t want to merge with the Big12. I wish the Pac12 would have hair tried to grab Oklahoma State and Kansas last season.
RE: ACC. You'd be playing maybe one or two out of conference games (one of which would be at home), plus a championship game between the two league winners (which we are unlikely to ever play in. Hah.) Plus you'd have some pretty sick basketball matchups. It seems pretty light as far as travel. You're basically sacrificing a non-conference match-up you'd be traveling across the country for anyways. You're still playing all of the Pac-10 schools. ESPN could market a day full of these matchups like they do for the Big East/ACC basketball showcase, which would bring some needed national visibility for the conference. It would help strength of schedule for a playoff birth. Bringing in the schools you mentioned fills the schedule for sure and give us more markets (albeit tiny ones), but weakens the conference strength of schedule from even just a Pac-10. Creating those ACC matchups strengthens it and makes up for some of what will be lost to the conference's strength of schedule with the loss of USC. Plus, adding those schools, means you may actually ended up playing in Boise or Ft. Collins rather than Seattle or Eugene some years. It waters down the schedule we would have now.
I understand how the ACC/Pac alliance would more than likely work and bring in more money than the expanded Pac10.
However, an expanded Pac10 could be a short term step but with a potential long term gain in terms of those areas growing in population. You bring in CSU and now the Pac has the entire Colorado market. Bring in Boise and you have the entire Idaho market.
Basically the Pac would control the entire markets for the states of Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Arizona. Utah State and Utah command a good portion of the Utah market. We get some of SoCal back with FSU and SDSU.
Try to cut a deal with Apple TV or Amazon Prime to broadcast your games with a simulcast on ESPN or Fox for any games that air after 6pm PST.
If we bring in SDSU, apparently the other MW school should be UNLV based on media market and future growth potential. Plus they play in the new Raiders stadium.
Yeah I meant to touch on Nevada. You would bring in one of UNR or UNLV with UNLV the most likely candidate due to the new stadium and their TV market.
UNLV
Boise State
Fresno State
SDSU
Colorado State
Utah State
This would make up the new Pac16. We would control the entire mountain west, PNW, NorCal, Southwest, and have a presence in SoCal.
You may be right if you can hold the rest of the conference together. I just don't see UO and UW waiting for those markets to grow and for a payout beyond the more imminent TV deal. At the end of the day, we'll need to find the best short-term solution to bring in the most TV revenue we can in this current negotiation, otherwise it's bye-bye--and possibly even if. Also, as a fan, I'd be more excited with the ACC alliance. That said, I would be interested in bringing in SDSU now. I think they make the most sense of the teams you suggest. And they'd help with basketball (although I hate their fans even more than U of A fans).
Honestly, I'd like a merger, just to give some sense of stability.
I get it, but apparently it's not gonna happen with the Big-12 anyways. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34264518/sources-big-12-pac-12-partner-talks-officially-end
Also, I think my initial desire was to join the B1G, but I've become more interested in finding away to preserve the conference and hopefully strengthening it over time. That said, you don't want to be left without a life raft, so if presented the opportunity to join the B1G, we have to take it. If no, the next Pac-10 program asked will.
That's how I feel as well, alpha. We are no longer on solid ground. It wouldn't surprise me if (figuratively) the ground opened up and swallowed everyone but the SEC and the B1G.
I was thrilled when Wilcox re-upped; now I feel sorry for him.
I don’t feel sorry for him at all.
Me neither. He's a young guy, making P5 money. If Cal stays P5 and he wins, he'll be a hot commodity. If the Pac-survivors drop to mid-major level, he still has his P5 salary until his contract expires, at which point he is a free agent. Alternatively if Cal does drop to mid-major, Cal could no longer afford Justin's salary, and would be somewhat releived to see him leave (so they could replace him with someone much, much cheaper).
you're quite the humanitarian, lol
He will be fine because he can always leave Cal for a bigger job. Cal has a minimum of two more seasons in a P5 conference, if Wilcox proves he can field a competent offense and win a Pac12 north title or a conference title he would be a hot commodity for any coaching vacancy at a bigger program. If Wilcox can’t field a competent offense and his teams struggle he will be fired and get a job as a DC at a good program.
I've been in your camp, Nick, for a very long time. I've been there since the start of the BCS nonsense and have often fretted that we were seeing the changing of college football and not for the better in pursuit of the almighty dollar. All the while ADs and college presidents said that NIL would be the death of college football. The unspoken part was that the ADs and the college presidents would be the death of college football because they would pursue the Big Bucks even if ti meant making college football nothing more than the NFL minor leagues.
Bowl games will contract, maybe dry up, within the next decade if not sooner. College football has always been about transferring wealth from the fans and the colleges to the bowl game folks and the TV networks ever since the advent of TV and the SEC.
The Rose Bowl is on life support, and it's only recently been made obvious that this is the case.
I disagree that the bowls will go away unless they are replaced by enough playoff games—and an eight team playoff is simply not enough for the content needs of the networks and sponsors. This is the reason some of the bowls with only a quarter of the stadiums filled can continue to exist. If they go, they’ll be replaced by something else.
The obvious and only solution for me is to stop caring about college sports. That's a decision that, while it has some pangs of regret, has been getting easier and easier for a long time.
I don't believe most Cal fans want to see Cal in the Big 10, Big 12 or ACC. Our choices are limited - and it's all about the lesser evils. Cal must work to preserve what's left of the original Pac - in whatever form or under whatever affiliation is necessary. As for the southern traitors - you're dead to us.
I would love for Cal to be in the Big10 and even the Big12 or ACC. The Pac 10 is a sinking ship.
Why? Joining Big 10 is the best thing that can happen to us. Why wouldn't Cal fans want it?
Expansion doesn't seem to be what it was in yesteryear (like 2 months ago). In reading all the articles about this realignment cycle, it's all about value now. For example, Notre Dame just stated its goal of $75M/year in media rights. So unless a new prospect like SDSU or UTSA for example, can at least match if not bring greater value than the current PAC members (which I think is around $30M - $40M with USC/UCLA), then their addition would be a net negative in the upcoming renegotiation and the payout would be divided up among more members. So, besides meeting traditional criteria like academics and football strength, any new addition needs to somehow bring greater media value through strength of brand, fanbase, marketability, and of course, media market. Though I guess if the PAC media value w/o USC/UCLA is lower, then the threshold could be lowered somewhat.
#1 is the slippery slope to perennial mid-major status.
The Titanic is sinking and some schools have scrambled into lifeboats. There's not enough room for everyone.
But the question is, does Cal (and even Stanford) want to remain a P5, with all that entails. To remain competitive in P5 football, does Cal Admin really want to play the NIL game? (I'm skeptical.) Does Cal want Olympic sports flying cross-country for conference games/tourneys? (Not likely)
As this shakes out, perhaps the best solution is mid-major status, (and a reduction of 30 sports)
Prior to UCLA and USC moving to the B1G, the Pac-12 was a Power 5 conference. The Pac-12 is still a P5 conference, but it is slipping into mid-major status unless it can do something to stop the slide. That something may be merging with the Big XII and/or the ACC.
The college football landscape has changed. One could argue that the power conferences are now the B1G and the SEC alone. Those conferences certainly have the TV status, wealth, and power that no other conference has.
College football has been undergoing a metamorphosis over the last 25 or so years that has radically changed the ground underneath our feet. What was true in 1996 is no longer true in 2022. If the remaining Pac-12 schools don't adjust with the shifting landscape, they will cease to be programs with any influence at all. As it is, they're just barely hanging on. Barely.
Stop screaming and stop talking about playoffs, that is not of our interest right now.
I believe a legal argument can be made to the UC Regents that this is a Title IX violation for the female athletes of UCLA.
Curious why?
I am not sure how this is a violation. If anything it helps ucla afford all of its female sports programs and stay in compliance with Title IX.
The loss of regional rivalries like this is going to hurt the sport in the long run, even if the current bosses can't see it while they chase short-term TV money. Strip away the history and tradition, and at some point college football just becomes a worse version of the NFL.
You're right, but I don't think it will matter. Part of what makes college football special (at least to me) is all of the weirder match-ups and the parity of styles. Pulling half the teams into two or three mega-conferences is only going make the product more homogenized. I would say that in SEC territory, college football is more popular than the NFL and probably always will be. The restructuring is not likely to affect those teams and rivalries the way it is in other regions. Pull Auburn out of the SEC and you'd see all sorts hell break loose, but that's never gonna happen.
I don't think college football should want to shrink itself to a Southeast/Midwest regional league either. Those are the only places where they could count on consistent support above or equal to the NFL, and even there it's touchy in the Midwest.
You'd think, but no one's driving and caring for the ship. That's the crux of the problem. Individual conferences (and fewer of them) and television are in control and there is no overarching entity looking out for the interest of the sport or the fans.
Yeah . . . it's not that the NCAA was great, but at least it kind of served that purpose for a time.
Conference realignment came for the Big East and I did not speak out because Cal was not in the Big East. Conference realignment came for the Big12 and I did not speak out because Cal was not in the Big12. Finally conference realignment came for the Pac12 and no one cared about Cal.
I share the sentiments of the author. I've lived my entire life rooting against $C and the little bruins. Of all games Cal plays, even more for me than Furd, I want to beat the LA schools. Nothing, nothing, will replace that. Why have I ever cheered for college sports, and remained a fan into adulthood instead of switching to a focus on professional sports? Because I have loved the amateur status and scholar/athleticism of Pac 8-10-12 schools. Take that away, and what is there? Why would I watch on Saturday? I have season tickets this year. What will the future look like for my investment? This whole thing is depressing. It rocks my world more than just about anything. How the next few years play out will be profoundly impactful to Cal Athletics not only through TV rights and such, but alumni loyalty and ticket purchases.
I've always hated SC twice as much as Stanford when it comes to football. And I like beating UCLA more than anyone in basketball.
Right on. I grew up in SoCal and hated $C then for the sniveling pompous rich kid attitude of the place. The only kid in my school to go to $C was a guy whose family was rich and who was about 35th in our class and a B student. Validated my bias. Then I went to Cal and my dislike for them flourished. UCLA was always just a little teachers college that I never cared about as a kid and still don't. Love to beat them in anything, and punish their sibling status as a weak sauce version of our colors and song.
When I was living in Chicago in the aughts, my dad (also an Old Blue) came out and we went to a SC / Notre Dame game (maybe Carroll's first year). I think we bought ticket from a USC fan on the train down to South Bend and ended up sitting really close to the field, but in a crowd of grey-haired old SC donor types. The SC cheerleaders were performing in front of us, and one of the cheerleader's mothers was standing up at the rail next to the field to take some photos of her daughter--clearly proud and happy to be sharing in this moment. The privileged SC donors instantly started yelling at the mom to get out of the way and sit down--turning on their own. I think one the old men even called her a "Sally". It was so gross and truly emblematic of the House of Troy.
I'm with you. My family was historically divided between UCLA and USC (I grew up a UCLA fan). Going to Cal gave my family a trash talk triangle and now that's broken.
I understand why the LA schools left and how Larry Scott's malpractice led to this moment but it still sucks, especially during this period of uncertainty.
The framework was there: 12 team playoff, top six conference champs get auto-bids. Naturally they rejected it.